It would depend on how the CDI is programmed, in other words what sim variable is driving the CDI.

 

As for deactivation/reactivation... yes our support can help you accomplish that if the need arises and it's not nearly as painful as it sounds.

It would depend on how the CDI is programmed, in other words what sim variable is driving the CDI.

 

As for deactivation/reactivation... yes our support can help you accomplish that if the need arises and it's not nearly as painful as it sounds.

 

OK, thanks

FYI, for those wanting to use either the GNS430 or 530 in the A2A C172: create a new blank text file on your desktop and rename it 'rxpGNS.dll'. Place this dummy file into your FSX or P3D/Gauges folder or else modifying the panel.cfg file alone won't work. The A2A C172 has to think you have RXP installed for it to give you those panel options. It's a crude workaround that works well. And a thank you to the person that helped me figure this out during beta testing.

 

Todd

We don't make 3D models, and I'm honestly uncertain where there would be a point in our making a 3D model ourselves when each aircraft addon developer does their own 3D modeling for their VCs independently. If I am missing something in that regard, please enlighten me.

 

I had the same thought: if it was possible to offer a 3D model of the Garmin unit in a commonly used modeling tool format, then airplane VC designers should be able to copy&paste that model straight into their cockpits. Might be naive, but I don't know enough about the topic to tell where the limits are, and whether dealing with clickspots etc could also be commonalized like that.

 

The bottom line is: make integration as painless as possible => get maximum market share => profit :-)

 

And things like the 3D model for the gauge don't have to be recreated by every VC designer, as its the same Garmin no matter where it's put...

See above. Exactly that. I've been trying to tell Stasi this for months but got ignored.

See above. Exactly that. I've been trying to tell Stasi this for months but got ignored.

Well Colin, correct me if I'm wrong... but... you already pay modelers a hefty fee to provide to you accurate 3D models for aircraft VCs of which any aircraft that has a 430 and/or 530 on it's panel would come with an accurate 3D model of that already included. Why on earth would you need us to give you that which you already pay your own modelers to accomplish?

See above. Exactly that. I've been trying to tell Stasi this for months but got ignored.

Thanks :-)

 

Maybe something like this could be set up by a pilot joint development between Mindstar and a premium aircraft developer, ideally with a bit of communication with the other players to find out what the do's and dont's are regarding a reusable 3D model; I'm thinking of Milviz, RealAir, Flight1, A2A and maybe Carenado.

 

I'd offer help with the communication part, but I'm a nobody in this business and have no clue about 3D modeling. Otherwise, just PM me ;-)

Ed, the idea is that if we (devs) don't have to match up our models with your bitmaps because you've given us the model (with the correct tags) it's far less work for us to do the integration.  This makes it simple.  Simple is good becuase then more devs will do it.  More devs will do it which means more sales for you.

 

That's it right there.

We are a software company. We don't do 3D models of anything.

 

I suspect you'll find that as long as your 3D models are accurate with respect to dimensions and positions of knobs and buttons as compared to the real-world units... things will line up.

It seems Bill already does a good job modelling 3D gauges for MilViz as the Mindstar G1000 and GNS units fit near perfectly in the 310. Some size adjusting is needed but he isn't far off the mark. Once the adjustments are made, MilViz will be well ahead of everyone else as far as Mindstar integration is concerned. I don't think Mindstar has any interest in getting into the VC modelling business as they have more important and lucritive things on their plate to fry. I, of course, don't speak for Ed or Stasi. I have been known to be wrong before......

 

Todd

As for the autopilot, there is no legal manner in which to drive the FS glideslope needle value to get the default autopilot can follow a WAAS approach down.

 

Regarding WAAS, the RealNav database is a world-wide database that contains WAAS approaches. The GNS units will provide lateral guidance in all GPS-controlled modes (LPV, LNAV, etc) but can not provide vertical guidance because the vertical component of the default autopilot is not settable (can't drive the glideslope needle).

 

 

Ed, not sure what you are saying here...

 

Both Flight1 and Reality XP have Garmin units driving the autopilot with lateral and vertical guidance when

on an LPV approach..  so, this has been done before..

 

Does your RealNav database not support vertical glidepath information for WAAS approaches?

I don't think these are the droids we're looking for (errr gauges).

 

But let's be honest, RXP came out when 2D bitmap panels were the thing. We've just been able (developers) integrate in VC's only recently.

 

It may take time but I will admit without some form of SDK, it may prove difficult to develop/integrate the MS garmins into the VC. I hope I an wrong though?

 

And reference the screenshot requests. From the little pic on the page they don't look like a real 430 at all. The colors are different for one.

 

If I open a GNS430W manual you're saying the MS 430 will look identical?

I must be missing something here. I am not sure why we are talking about these units if they are not intended to go into our flight sim planes. Are they trying to sell this to developers or simmers and how is it useful if there is no way to install into our payware. Not trying to be a jerk but I just don't get it.

So the plan is that Milviz is officially going to provide a full 3D option for integration of these Mindstar gauges in their pre-existing GA airplanes, similar to how RealAir does for the RXP stuff?

I'm kinda with shivers. This looks like it's more of a hardware type thing. Or something you'd put on a 2nd monitor.